HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB Resooning â–ºoar
Resolution o: 07-0094
Monday, October 29, 2007
Mr, Angel Urquiola offered the following resolution and moved its adoption
Resolution:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO,
11000, THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COMMISSION TO AMEND PAGE NO. 19, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3624 NORTHWEST 23RD COURT, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Upon being seconded by Mr. Cornelius Shiver,
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. Bret Berlin Yes
Mr. Ron Cordon Away
Mr. Miguel Gabela Yes
Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes
Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia Yes
Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta Yes
Mr. Jorge Luis Lopez Yes
Mr. Juvenal A. Pina Yes
Mr, Cornelius Shiver Yes
Mr. Angel Urquiola Yes
AYE; 9
NAY: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENT: 1
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 9-0
Teresita L. Fernandez, Executive- cretary
Hearing Boards
File ID#: 07W00789zc
Z.2
EXHIBIT A
Lots 12 and ::,,3, Block il, ot GARDEN CITY, accordin9 to the
plat hereof as -ecored in Plat Book at page 73, of the
Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida,
a/kla. 3624 N 23 Court, Miami; Florida. 33142
Circle approp itionts):
When perlaini d to the reri ening of land under application made under Article 22, the report and
recommendation of the Zoning Board shall show that the Zoning Board has studied and considered,
where applicable, whether or not
a) The proposed change contemns wth the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and
does not require a plan amendment.
b) The proposed change is n harmony with the established land use pattern,
c) The proposed change is related to adjacent and nearby district
d) The change suggested is not OW of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city.
e) The proposed change maintains the same or similar population density pattern and thereby does not
increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilizes, streets, etc.
f) Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property
proposed for change.
g) Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary.
h) The proposed change positively influences living conditions in the neighborhood.
i) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on traffic and does not affect public safety to a
greater extent than the existing classification.
j) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on drainage as the existing classification.
k) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on light and air to adjacent areas as the
existing classification.
I) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on property values in the adjacent area as the
existing classification.
m) The proposed change will contribute to the improvement or development of adjacent property in
accord with existing regulations.
n) The proposed change conveys the same treatment to the individual owner as to owners within the
same classification and the immediate area and furthers the protection of the public welfare.
o) There are substantial reasons why the use of the property is unfairly limited under existing zoning.
p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding are for the proposed use in districts
already permitting such use.
Motion: After considering t e factors set forth in Section 2210 of Ordinance No. 1 logo, I move that the
request on agenda,rtem # *K be -recommended to the City Commission forrtapproval);(denial).
An 4)R-1 14-
../Signatuks Print Name
10, Vi-o-1
Agenda Item Date